tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News March 17, 2013 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
that work the way you wish they would. like a front-end loader you can detach from your seat? or a mower deck you just drive over and cut through knee-deep grass no problem? yep. we thought the same thing you did. that's why we build them this way. that's how we run. nothing runs like a deere. visit your dealer or johndeere.com/howwerun to see the new signature series and 1 family tractors.
>> chris: i'm chris wallace. will charm be enough to bridge the differences in the battle of the budget? president obama reaches out to all members of congress just as house republicans and senate democrats come out with dramatically different blueprints for our fiscal future. what are the chances for a compromise? we will ask two is senators leading the debate, democrat dick durbin and republican bob corker. then, republican at a crossroads. as conservative activists gather in washington, g gop leaders argue about the future of the party. we'll discuss differences within the gop with matt kibbie
of freedom works and former congressman steve latourette of the republican mainstream partnership. the u.s. responds to north korean threats by beefing up its missile defense as the president heads to israel. we will ask our sunday panel whether mr. obama has the right answers to foreign policy challenges around the world. and our power player of the week. a celebrity chef combines the classic with the cutting edge. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: hello again and happy st. patrick's day from fox news in washington. the president met with republicans and democrats in both the house and senate this week. but for all of the talk of a grand bar gain there was no sign the two parties are any closer to bridging the divide over our nation's debt. we want to discuss the chances for a deal with two key senators.
dick durbin the senate's number two democrat joins us from chicago. tennessee republican bob corker is in chattanooga. gentlemen, while the president was meeting with members of congress, house republicans and senate democrats put out their budget plans which had dramatic differences. let's take a look at them. the gop plan would cut the deficit $4.6 trillion over ten years, all through spending cuts. the democratic plan would cut the deficit $1.8 trillion half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes. senator corker, let me start with you will senate republicans accept a tax increase if you get serious entitlement reform and cuts? >> i think senate republicans and all republicans want to see a 75 year solution to entitlements and i think republicans are joined in wanting to see tax reform so to the extent that generates revenues and how that is scored obviously that will be debated as we move ahead but i think
all of us understand the real issues driving the deficit is in our o country are the entitlements. we want to see these available for generations to come. >> chris: but real quickly you you understand the price for entitlement reform in any deal would be a tax increase. would you buy that and what do you think are the prospects there willle be a deal sometime before this summer? >> well, again, i think there by the way is a chance on a deal. i know the president is saying the right things and we have an opportunity over the next four to five months i think that we will know when the president is serious by virtue of a process that is set up where he is actually at the table or whether he has a di designee ad whether he begins to say publicly to the american people to all americans that he underand its that americans are only paying one third of the cost of medicare and that has to change for the program to be here down the road.
look, chris, i think republicans if they saw true entitlement reform would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues and that doesn't mean increasing rates. that means closing loophole os. it also means arranging our tax system so is that we have economic growth. and i think we have been saying that from day one. >> chris: well, senator durbin, i heard some give there from senator corker. let me he ask you. are senate democrats willing to make serious cuts, reforms to entitlements if you get added tax revenue and what are the prospects tor for a grand bar ? >> what he articulated is what we did in the bowles simpson commission and what we have done since. we said let's put everything on the table and i want to thank bob be for saying that. we have to, of course, pass the budget resolution in the senate. patty murray has done an extraordinarily good job and then move to the next stage and
that is the grand bargain stage. both sides sitting down on a bipartisan basis not eliminating medicare as emhe afraid the paul ryan budget would do but making sure it survives for generations to come. putting revenues on the table that are fair and won't penalize the working people across america and making sure it is a balanced approach. i think what bob corker just said from his side is a basic principles that both parties can rally around. >> chris: and real specifically because i want to pin you down on this, are you saying you would accept structuralle chains, not doing away with medicare but structural changes and cuts to entitlements? >> let me tell you in 10-12 years medicare goes broke. that unanswered questions unanswered questions acceptable. the paul ryan voucher aapproach
is destructive of medicare. there are ways to approach it to reduce the cost of medical care and still keep our promise to seniors across america. >> chris: part of the problem in the debate is that the parties seem to be disagreeing about the importance of dealing with our national debt. i want to play what president obama said this week and also what he said back as a candidate in 2008. take a look. >> we don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. in fact, for the next ten years it is going to be in a sustainable place. >> we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man, woman and child. we havthat is irresponsible. it is unpatriotic. >> chris: senator durbin, when candidate obama said that our national debt was $9 trillion. it is now $16 trillion. so the question is if it was unpatriotic at $9 trillion, is
it sustainable at $16 trillion? >> chris, here is is the good news. we reduced the long-term deficit by about $2.4 trillion including only $600 billion in new revenue as part of the fiscal cliff. we still have to do more but we have taken the edge off the crisis. i willle concede that. what the president is pointing to is this. we need strong economic recovery. we need to put americans back to work. that is our first priority. deficit reduction i would put as the second priority and one that is coupled with economic growth. so i think we can do both. make sure we have deficit reduction but don't cut too much too fast. take for scamel the sequestration. 700,000 american jobs will be lost. h is not the right time to do it. we have to phase this in and sequence it so we have economic growth and americans paying taxes. that really helps us recover. >> chris: senator corker,
democrats and you just heard this sort of from dirk durbin but i heard it in more extreme forms from other democrats say it is more important to have economic growth than to deal with the national debt. your response? >> i think we should have economic growth and obviously we would like to see that happen and i think reducing the deficit helps cre create econoc growth. look, i think it is ridiculous to say that cutting $1.2 trillion over the next decade when we will spend $47 trillion of your money is a step too far. of course, we need to do that. and on top of that we need to build towards the entitlement reforms which obviously are creating the huge dent down the road. i think it was disappointing to all of us to have the president come in and talking the way that he is and by the way, i attend the dinner and have been on o the phone calls and met with the white house and appreciate the outreach. but in the midst of that to act as if this deficit issue is not that important was a little
disheartening. i do think, chris, again, i think we have the best opportunity we are going to have under president over the next four months to solve this problem and i look forward to working with dick durbin and others as we try to build on the commonnallities that we have. we have a lot of things that separate us but there is enough commonnallity to build off of that. the post morn thing we can do for our nation's economic growth and long-term security and that is what we need to be focused on. >> i am getting a kind of hopeful sense from both of you and i want to pick up and button this up quickly with you, senator durbin. do you agree this is the last best chance for a big deal and how optimistic are you that you will be able to pull it off between now and let's say mid summer? >> listen if you are senator you have to be patient. but i have been at this for years and this is an excellent opportunity. both side have to come together. what bob sade and what i tried to say this morning is there are elements in this that we can all agree on on a
bipartisan basis. what the president is trying to do is not a charm offensive but basically to say to the seriousans i'm suous about about this and will sit down to come up with a grand bargain. let's not miss this opportunity. >> chris: before you deal -- >> chris. >> chris: go ahead, senator. >> if i could say one thing. think we will all know again when the president is serious will be when begins using the podium to explain to the american people that the average american family is only paying one third of the cost of medicare. when begins to lay that out from h his podium. i have been saying that for years and dick durbin has been saying that for some time. but when the president uses his bully pull pit tpit to explaint families are only paying one third of the cost of medicare we will know that he has begun the process to solve that problem.
i hope that happens when gets back from israel. >> chris: before you deal with the budget you have to pass a continuing resolution before march 27 and going on recess at the end of this week, to keep the government running otherwise it shuts down. the question, senator durbin, is will the senate pass a cr, a continuing resolution that keeps spending at $984 billion which is what the spending level is of the house cr including the sequester cuts? >> chris, when i left, washington, on thursday we had 99 amendments pending to the continuing resolution. the budget for the federal government. 99 amendments. six of the amendments were on the issue of our relationship with egypt. this is all very important i understand. we have work to be done in just a short period of time. i urge senate colleagues let's get the cr passed. we can do it and do it quickly this coming week. >> chris: direct question will you pass a cr at $984 billion
which is the house level that includes the sequester cuts? >> listen we have put together a cr that is acceptable in its dollar terms to the house of representatives and i think we can agree on with them. >> chris: gentlemen, running out of time. i want to ask you each about a question that in. senator durbin you are part of the bipartisan senate group working on immigration reform. are you you going to be able to come up with a plan that creates a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegals who o are now in this country and if so when are you going to put the plan on the table? >> we are working literally hours every week. four democrats, four republicans. and we are making progress. there is still some tough, tough issues out there but i feel good about it. there is a feeling in that room that we have a responsibility to this nation after 25 years to write an immigration law that we can live with for generations to come. >> chris: what is the biggest problem?
>> there is several problems. we are dealing with border enforcement which is very important on the republican side of the table. we are dealing with the question of the 11 million people paying their taxes, having a path to legalization and then ultimately to citizenship. tough issues but we are coming together and i think we can do it. i have a positive feeling. >> chris: finally, senator corker, you are the top republican on the senate foreign relations committee. this week on friday the pentagon announced they are going to deploy 14 additional missile intercepters to alaska to deal with the potential nuclear threat from north korea. what do you think of the idea? how serious do you think is the threat from the north korean a a good morning and are we paying a price for the fact that president obama scaled back on missile defense when came into office? >> well, look, i applaud the efforts. i talked to senator kerry and i know we have a group heading off to poland on monday to talk about this further. i applaud it as i mentioned. i do hope we will focus on a
base on the eastern side with radar facilities. and i think the question is, chris, how does the nondeplowment of the fourth phase of our european based issues it temperature affect us over time. there is technical issues we will be getting into this week with the the pentagon and the state department but certainly i think most all of us applaud the efforts to beef up our missile defense on the west coast chris do you think that kim young unand the north koreans are a threat to the u.s. >> i don't think they have the mechanism to really harm us. i think it puts us in a different place as it relates to negotiating with them. at the end of the day, chris, i know there is a lot of talk, six party talks, all kind of things that are occurring. all of us understand the key to this is going to be china. they are the ones that can
affect the behavior of north korea because of the trade issues and certainly support issues coming from china into north korea. hopefully china sees the threat for nuclear proliferation in that part of the world in the event they are not able to stop what north korea is doing. >> chris: thank you both. we have to leave it there. thank you for talking with us and no doubt there is tough par beginning' head on -- bargaining ahead on the budget. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you you. >> chris: up next, the battle inside the gop o over how to gw the party. vo: always one step ahead with an intuitive motion activated lid and seat, bold makes sure you'll never have to ask him again.
the annual meeting and if you can believe it, a presidential straw poll for 2016. here are the results. tea party favorite, rand paul won with 25 percent. marco rubio was 2nd at 23 percent, and risk santorum, 3rd at 8 percent, showing the disagreement for the best way to bradden the base. president of freedom works is a leader of the tea party movement. former congressman is head of the republican main street partnership. gentleman, welcome to fox news sunday. congressman, during the lame duck session in december you talked of the 40 to 50 chuckleheads who were blocking speaker boehner from a budget deal with the president. what is it about the tea party freshmen that make them chuckleheads?
>> i don't say all of them of the congress seem more interested in voting "no" and going home than governing and that comment was made after plan "b" which was to just race taxes on people making over $1 million. >> it would have given the speaker the opportunity to go to the white house and the senate say, here, i have a package. let's continue our negotiations. when you take it down, as the speak are said, you send them to the white house naked and he has no tools. >>chris: looking forward, what is it, sir, about the tea party and their views on spending and taxes that members of the republican establishment like the congressman, do not get? >> you have to understand the only reason we are talking about a balanced budget, the only reason we have a serious debate about $16 trillion in debt is because of the tea party class in 2010 and the folks we added
in 2012, you have to stop the process, this bipartisan process of just kicking the can down the road and creating artificial crisis on new year's eve and say, put some ideas on the table, let's stop playing this game. that is what we have done. we are never going to fix this problem just i pretending the process of bipartisanship somehow gets to the problem. this crisis was created by both republicans and democrats not willing to make tough choices. >> that flies in the face of what we did in the 1990's when bill clinton was the president and gingrich was the speaker, and kasich was the budget chairman. it was during the bush years of spending, multiplied now by the obama years we have this mess. at the end of the day my difficulty with the tea party freshmen is not the true passion they bring, but the difficulty at the end of the day you have to govern. saying "no" doesn't get you
anything but creates a false crisis. you can get beyond the false crisis if you can work something out. it does not mean surrender or become a democrat or whatever, but it mines working together in a way you get circuit 60 60 60 t you want. >> the tea party came in and tried to do something. i remember when april 15 is when the house of representatives and senate had to pass a budget resolution. i remember a day when the president actually had to introduce his budget. today we do not do any of that stuff. that is how we got to the $16 trillion. there is something about standing on the tracks and saying, we cannot do it this way. we have to do it another way. >> if that is the way they operated, i would be all for that. we could not even get, in labor, health and human services bill, the biggest bill beside defense,
get it out because three of our members would not support the chairman. that is not trying to solve the problem. you cannot get it done. just voting "no" and holding your nose say, boy, if it passes i can go home and say i voted "no" that is ridiculous. >>chris: sir, one reason that we saw last week, a split has been over national security. you backed rand paul's filibuster of the president's drone policy in the senate. you also backed the sequester of across-the-board cuts even in the pentagon. isn't one of the g.o.p.'s planks that it is tough on national security. >> you can be first speal responsible and tough on national security. >>chris: the drone has nothing to do with fiscal issues. >> so there are two issues. one is about basic civil
liberties. the new g.o.p. reflected by rand paul's willingness to challenge the status quo in both the republican and democratic party is a healthy thing. young people, if particular, are looking for leadership that is willing to challenge the idea that the government is always right. that is where we are, as well. on defense, though, frankly on any budget, any program, any department of the federal government, let's all acknowledge that there is waste and things that need to be eliminated and trimming of defense would be a very healthy thing. you have to puttering on -- put everything on the tail. you can say say certain things cannot be touched. >>chris: sir, rand paul talked about defense hawks like john mccain and senator graham as "stale" and "moss covered." there is a war wearyness. should the republican party trying to grow the party, should it pull back on national
defense? >> i grew up in the time of the $800 hammer and the $600 toilet seat so there are efficiencies but if you look to the constitution for something the government is supposed to be involved in, it is defending the country. sequestration was the most ham-handed way of dealing with things and we only got there because of the dysfunction that exists. the democrats will not give an inch. it is incumbent upon us to find the sweet spot. speaker boehner tried to do it with the president but the president is not willing. >>chris: you say dysfunction and you motioned in his direction. is the tea party adding to the dysfunction in washington? >> not at all. they are an important part of the coalition that is the republican party. my difficulty with not necessarily his group but other groups like his, there is some kind of litmus test of what make as good or bad republican and the reason we don't have a republican president today in my
opinion is we don't represent the whole country. we don't have one member of congress who is a republican from the entire eastern sea coast until you get to the carolinas and virginia. you cannot govern the country unless you look like the country. they are not the republican party, they are part of the republican party. >>chris: how do you respond? you may have energized the party but you narrowed it? >> if you look at cpac or the rockstars of the g.o.p., the next generation, the people that we are excited about, they are tea party freshmen, rand paul, ron johnson from a purple or blue state, pat toomey from pennsylvania, and of course marco rubio. we brought diversity and energy and ideas. we are color blind about this stuff. if you want to come to the senate or the congress and offer a plan to balance the budget, we will support you. put your ideas on the tail. that is what lacking in the
debate. >> i have to say, sadly, what they have brought us is harry reid as the majority leader continuing in the senate. if you look at the nevada race, or you look at indiana and murdoch and the witch in delaware, i forget her name, we can have functional control of the united states senate today but for the litmus test that exists. >>chris: there were a lot of republican candidates, that were established that went down. >> but unlike mr. murdoch, we are supposed to wonder, from indiana, why we don't have the women's vote with a candidate suggesting that a child born as a result of rape is a gift from god? i'm not wondering why we don't have more women voting for republicans. >>chris: that is the last thing we will get into, karl rove and he. be on the panel, a conservative victory project is trying to get in the primaries to make sure there are more electable
republicans, people that can win the primary and go on and win the general election. congressman, you are about to start your own super pac for republican parties and elect your own candidates. can do you think that is wrong? >> the definition of electable is what we are debating. when you look at who is winning, it is young people like ted cruz or marco rubio and if you applied this sort of establish president litmus test which tends to be bias god people that are already in office you will not get that neuter. would we have gotten pat toomey? karl rove supported arlen specter as far back as 2004 against pat toomey thinking he could not win. arlen specter, later, flipped party when it was convenient and bake the 60th vote for obamacare so we need to be careful about what it means to
be electable. at least we are winning elections and bringingp new people in the party. we are not in a position where the democrats can jam something through because of the tea party. >> there is no litmus test for the republican main street. i am happy to have anyone who label himself or herself as a republican and wanted to represent the expire country. we are not talking about electing the governor of south carolina or utah. if we want to be a national party we have to look like america. today, we look like we are a bunch of white guys from below the mason dixon line. you have to talk about issues in a way i have to talk about issues. i never read anything in my republican playbook and i have been a republican since the day i was born, that says that republicans and trade unionists cannot get along. the carpenter, the operating engineer. somehow, this whole war on prevailing wage is now a plank of the republican party? no, it is not. 9 same with the environment, i
live on lake erie, we do not have to be opposed to everything that helps us get clear air and clean water. that is not a republican test. you look at the key votes that the groups are scoring and 18 votes was scored by mr. kibbee votes by a thousand taken, you can make the poll look any way you want to. >> if you look at the new republican party that is standing for something, you look at tim scott or ted cruz, and mia love almost got through, this is the new future. we don't care about the color of your skin. >>chris: we have to leave it through but to be continued. thank you both for coming in. we will stay on the debate. up next we will continue this conversation with our sunday group. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 seems like etfs are everywhere these days.
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 but there is one source with a wealth of etf knowledge tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all in one place. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 introducing schwab etf onesource™. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 it's one source with the most commission-free etfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 one source with etfs from leading providers tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and extensive coverage of major asset classes...
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all brought to you by one firm tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with comprehensive education, tools and personal guidance tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to help you find etfs that may be right for you. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 schwab etf onesource-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 for the most tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free etfs, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you only need one source and one place. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 start trading commission-free with schwab etf onesource. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call, click or visit today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors should carefully consider tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 information contained in the prospectus, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 including investment objectives, risks, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 arges, and expenses. d#: 1-800-345-2550 you can request a ospectus by calling schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at 800-435-4000. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 please read the prospectus carefully before investing. [ slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium-rich tums starts working so fast you'll forget you h heartburn. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums
mr. paul, if he wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up libertarian kids in their dorms. >> the g.o.p. of old is stale. it is stale. >>chris: republican senators john mccain and rand paul trading some pretty tough shots about paul's recent filibuster over the president's drone policy. it is time now for our sunday group. bill you have an editorial in the latest issue of the weekly standard and you say that rand paul is wrong on national security as a matter of policy and politics.
why, especially is he wrong on the matter of politics? >> the republican party to the degree that it is successful and important part and contributed to the american well-being the last 50 or 60 years has been the party of strong national security. republicans were not, you can say it is stale or moss covered but some of us are proud to come to washington, dc, to work for ronald reagan, and some of us are proud to support the bush administration after 9/11 and fighting our enemies and the problem with the obama administration is not that it is too assertive in the war but the problem is we are retreating around the world and emboldening our enemies. if rand paul wants to be to the left of the obama administration, he can try. maybe there is some support for that. >>chris: the president thinks that "bringing our troops home" but not in a rush but that is a winning message and the last campaign, frankly, republicans
everyone not talking a lot about open-ended foreign commitments. does the g.o.p. need to recognize and respond to a war wearyness? >> the drone issue and war wearyness are two different issues. rand paul's war on drones is a war on a pretty successful tight against terrorism. i am not sure where that gets us. i agree with bill, the g.o.p. doesn't lose by being a strong party of national security. what the republicans lost were moderates in the election. 5 percent of moderates went to self described moderates, went to president obama, not the party. that is who you need to get back. do you not do it by a drone going after drones but by not making comments about "legitimate rape" or appeal to single women. you need to appeal to people at the bottom of the economic ladder which we heard a lot at
the cpac from a number of the speakers. >>chris: everyone agrees "legitimate rape" was stupid. in a more subtle way, though, rand paul talks about the need to embrace liberty and the personally area and talking about maybe we do not enforce the drug laws entirely. the socialo be a more ticklish conservatives are a big part of the republican base. >> but he did not go down the road of gay marriage which there is a sea change in this country. also, some change in the republican party, as well. >>chris: what do you think would happen to become more accepting of gay marriage in the republican party? >> if you included people who were accepting of gay marriage in the republican party, that is not necessarily the plat follow of the republican party, it helps the republican party. the party needs to be more inclusive of people of different
views. >>chris: karl, you have a dog in this fight as we mentioned earlier, you are one of the founders of american crossroads and starting the group called conservative victory project. the idea is to help republicans in their primaries to become people that can actually get elected in general elections. sarah palin, yesterday at cpac, let's look at that. >> these experts who keep losing elections, you keep getting rehired, raking in millions, if they fowl that strongly about who gets to run in the party, they should buck up or stay in the truck. buck up and run. >>chris: bucking up? i'm not sure i got that, but bucking up, she says, basically, in the first line, was the last thing the party needs is people from the washington establishment, did not mention your name but you were who she
was talking about, vetting republican candidates. >> i live in texas, i don't live in walk. >>chris: you are differenty here. >> she should agree. she did not support todd aikens but she said he ought to get out of the race, the "legitimate rape candidate." if she can plan primaries others can. first of all, i am a volunteer. i don't take a dime for my work and i pay my own travel expenses from my own pocket. i thought she was encouraging volunteer grass roots activity. i volunteer. second, i appreciate her encouragement to go home to texas and work on nonprofits. i don't think i am a good candidate, a balding fat guy and i would say if i ran for office and won i would serve out my term, i would not leave office
mid-term. >> who was he referring to? i wonder. how much do you enjoy this? >> you hate to see this fighting inside a party, especially the other party. it is great stuff, but, look, you have chuckleheads, moss-covered and stale. these are three wings of the party and the stale and moss covered and apologizing to the wacko birds which is what john mccain did? >> a party doesn't have the white house tends to have the difficulties and this is nothing new or exceptional. >> the issue is you have the fights in the party but when you have had one, that party tens to lose. we have soon it in the senate races, we talked about it
earlier, bill kristol. you give up something when you have the fights. we have had them in the democrat party but it does not look good for 2014 or 2016 because it will be settled. it will not be settled in this intervening time. this will be a fight that goes down in those house races and stat races in 2014 and in the end the two or three-rings will have a fight for the presidency. >>chris: what do you make of fight on national security and social issues in the party, karl? >> from the people who are watching, but i am not sure who is watching closely of the rand paul took advantage of a huge mistake by eric holder who was asked a simple question, if a united states citizen who is a suspected terrorist is sitting in a coffee shop having a cup of coffee does the president have the right to take him out with a
drone strike? everyone in the republican party and a lot of democrat would say, no, he does not have authority to take out someone who is sitting there having a cup but --. >>chris: business krystal says it looks hike he is running to the left. >> he is to the left of president obama in this regard, and it is not what rand paul talked about. he believes al-awlaki, the united states born cleric who led al qaeda in yemen, should not have been taken out by a drone strike but he is on the record saying and i quote, "he should have been arrested and given legal representation and tried in court." virtuallyally republicans disagree. that is where the division comes^. ronaldrand paul emphasized whery agree rather than disagreed. >>chris: obviously there is a lot more to discuss but when we come back, the u.s. built up the missile defense responding to north korea's threat of a
nuclear attack. responding to north korea's threat of a nuclear attack. do we have a mower? no. a trimmer? no. we got nothing. we just bought our first house, we're on a budget. we're not ready for spring. well let's get you ready. very nice. you see these various colors. we got workshops every saturday. yes, maybe a little bit over here. this spring, take on more lawn for less. not bad for our first spring. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. get three bags of rthgro mulch, a special buy at just $10. that work the way you wish they would. like a front-end loader you can detach from your seat? or a mower deck you just drive over and cut through knee-deep grass no problem? yep. we thought the same thing you did. that's why we build them this way. that's how we run. nothing runs like a deere.
>> the united states has missile defense systems in place to protect us from limited icbm attacks. north korea, particularly, has recently made advances in its capabilities and has engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations. >>chris: defense secretary hagel announcing the united states will deploy 14 more missile interceptors if alaska to deter north korea. the pentagon says this is a response to recent ataxpayer --
attacks by the new north korean theater kim jong-un. and the pentagon says we believe this young had ought to be deterred and if not we will be ready. how seriously do we really take a threat of a nuclear strike from north korea and what is this about? >> they were planned by the bush administration and the first thing the obama administration did was cancel them and now they are deploy them. so, better late than never but it is late. north korea has tested delivery systems and had nuclear tests and there were iranian observers at the most recent test and they are close to pakistan. is there a serious problem that north korea is a nuclear weapons state? and talking to other states are they on the verge of that? i am for missile defense but it does not substitute if a robust foreign policy to get back to
the rand paul question which deals with the states before they become nuclear states. this raises the question of what happens with iran. the president's national security advisor said this week, can you believe this, the united states will not accept north korea as a nuclear state. it is not nice. they are a nuclear state. how seriously can you take the president when he says they are not a nuclear test? >>chris: of course, george bush said this was unaccept average and it happened and we accepted it. >> i agree. >>chris: now, the fact this is a big change for president obama who was scaling back on missile defense. >> it is an acknowledgment of, first, the little lad has declared he wants to issue a preemptive nuclear strike against the united states is a threat to ghana but, also, what is frightening is china seems
less able to control north korea. they tried to block the latest nuclear test and could not. we have to ween ourselves off the cycle of they issue these statements and we come forward or someone comes forward with economic aid. those are two issues. the other thing, speaking of iran, the chief of the strategic command says we may need the missile defense on the east coast for iran. this is something we will have to deal with on both fronts of both countries. the missile defense, they have a limited ability, they are 50 percent accuracy effectiveness so you have to push on all fronts. >>chris: this comes as the president heads to israel this week and in an interview with
israeli television he was asked about the threat from iran. >> now, we predict it would take a year for iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon. obviously, we don't want to cut it too close. >>chris: how do you think president obama is handling the threats of north korea and iran? both of these continue their nuclear buildup under president public. >> in north korea, after 10 years of trying to experiment with sanctions that are loosened after forth korea agrees do do something, we have learned, painfully, north korea never does what they say they will do. this is a tough thing to deal with. partly, self made. the united states has a policy calling for reunification of north and south korea. china doesn't want them reunified because they don't want a capitalist democracy on their border.
south korea does not want reunification at 50 million in south korea, a prosperous country, one of the most abject states of poverty to the north. until we forego a unification we will not get the cooperation we need from china. maybe we should not be provoked by this guy into giving any kind of concessions and reexamine what we really ought to step back from a policy of reunification with 9 hope that north korea misbehaves it will draw the chinese to step in. >>chris: iran? >> the president has mislayed them from the beginning. he had a chance to undermine the regime and he missed it. we get hints the u.s. government has been actively taking steps behind-the-scenes with computer viruses to undermine this but a year to get a nuclear weapon is
not a lot of time. there will be a moment when all the materials are brought together in one place to begin to make a weapon and i hope to god the united states and the israelis have the ability to know when that moment is and deal with it. >>chris: i was interested in the president saying we don't want to cut it too close. it seeps we are close. what is interesting is when american presidents goes to israel, and this is obama's first trip there as president the top issue is the from expects for peace between the israelis and the minutes. no one is talking about that in any serious way now. >> i don't think the white house -- there will not be an announcement of a new peace initiative as the president visits the two parties. i want to get pack to korea for a secretary because one of the things that is more important than just the obama administration changing their policy and putting missile defense system is, china, now, looks like they have changed and
their inability to stop a nuclear test and now with the ratcheting of north korea, china is getting involved in the latest sanctions and pushing harder could be the most critical thing. china and the obama administration are working together we could get north korea to stand down. >>chris: in the 30 seconds we have left, bill, what is the most we can expect from the president on his trip to israel? >> he will offer or try to offer reassurance to israel that he has israel's "back" which will be viewed with skepticism and if you look at the united states policy honestly and clear eyes, if you are the netanyahu government, you do not trust president obama to act. >>chris: thank you, panel. see you next week.
month ahead and especially on weekends it's booked within minutes. >> he was one of the celebrity chefs. at his restaurant in frederick, maryland 45 minutes from washington folks are happy to pay hundred dollars a person for the privilege of eating his food. >> great satisfaction i get being a chef is when a diner tries something for the first time and i see the glow on their face, i know i have done my job. >> tonight's elimination challenge winner is ryan. >> he put himself on the map when he competed on top chef. one of the other contestants is his brother michael and the finals came down to the brothers. >> you are the top chef. >> congratulations. >> chris: how did it feel when your brother beat you? >> i was